USA v. Yener

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 24-cr-20523-BLOOM/Elfenbein
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARUN ABDUL-HAMID YENER,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Harun Abdul-Hamid Yener’s Motion
to Compel Production of the Charged Material and Identification of the Depictions the
Government Will Use (“Motion”), ECF No. [192]. The Government filed a Response in
Opposition (“Response”), ECF No. [195], and Defendant filed a Reply in Support (“Reply”), ECF
No. [198]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the supporting and opposing submissions, the
record, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On August 27, 2025, Defendant was charged by Second Superseding Indictment with
Possession of Obscene Visual Representations of the Sexual Abuse of Children, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1) (Count 1), and Possession of Obscene Visual Representations of the Sexual
Abuse of Children, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1) (Count 2). ECF No. [196].
Defendant seeks, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E), an order
compelling the Government to produce copies of the visual depictions, subject to a protective order
under Rule 16(d)(1), and to identify by file name and hash value each depiction it intends to offer
at trial. ECF No. [192] at 1. Defendant contends the Government’s basis for withholding copies
Case 1:24-cr-20523-BB Document 204 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2026 Page 1 of 5

Case No. 24-cr-20523-BLOOM/Elfenbein
2
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3509(m) does not apply because the images are not “child pornography”
under 18 U.S.C. § 2256. Id. at 5-6. Defendant points out that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
16(a)(1)(E) independently requires production and the Government to identify the depictions it
intends to use at trial. Id. at 6.
The Government responds that production is prohibited under § 3509(m) because under §
2256(8), 	“child 	pornography” 	is 	defined 	to 	computer-generated 	images 	which 	are
indistinguishable from those of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. ECF No.
[195] at 2. The Government contends that “at least 11” of the dozens of images are AI generated
indistinguishable depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Id. at 3. The
Government points out that these images are interspersed within three large extraction reports, and
segregating the images from others contained within the extraction reports would require the
Government to produce additional reports and result in the disclosure of two separate sets of
discovery relating to the same device extraction. The Government contends that defense counsel
has already been provided with redacted copies of all images the Government intends to use at
trial and was afforded the opportunity to review the unredacted images at the FBI Field Office. Id.
at 3. As such, there is no need to order the Government to disclose the depictions it will use at trial
because it has already done so. Id. at 4.
Defendant replies that the Government has conceded that the bulk of the charged material
is outside of § 3509(m) and offers no valid basis for withholding it. ECF No. [198] at 2. Defendant
contends that the Government’s administrative inconvenience in producing additional reports and
separate sets of discovery is not a legal basis to withhold material that Rule 16 otherwise requires
be produced. Id. at 4. Defense counsel indicates she has reviewed the extraction reports and images
identified for trial and does not agree that the images are indistinguishable from an actual minor.
Case 1:24-cr-20523-BB Document 204 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2026 Page 2 of 5

Case No. 24-cr-20523-BLOOM/Elfenbein
3
Defendant’s request for identification of the Government’s trial exhibits is not moot because the
Government’s representations regarding how it intends to present its case continue to shift, and an
order requiring the Government to identify, by file name and hash value, each depiction it intends
to introduce would “go some way toward ensuring [Defendant] is aware of how the [G]overnment
intends to proceed so that he may effectively meet the charges.” Id. at 8.
Defendant requests the Court issue an order directing:
(1) production of copies of all charged depictions the Government does not contend
meet 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)—including, at minimum, the “dozens of cartoons or other
drawings” it has identified for use at trial—subject to the proposed protective order;
(2) identification, by file name and hash value, of the eleven images the
Government contends are indistinguishable from actual minors, with further relief
as to those images to follow once identified; and (3) identification, by file name and
hash value, of each depiction the Government intends to offer in its case-in-chief
as substantive evidence of the charged offenses in the Second Superseding
Indictment, and each depiction the government intends to introduce as § 404(b)
evidence.
Id. at 8-9.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3509(m):
(1) In any criminal proceeding, any property or material that constitutes child pornography
(as defined by section 2256 of this title) shall remain in the care, custody, and control of
either the Government or the court.
(2)(A) Notwithstanding Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court shall
deny, in any criminal proceeding, any request by the defendant to copy, photograph,
duplicate, 	or 	otherwise 	reproduce 	any 	property 	or 	material 	that 	constitutes 	child
pornography (as defined by section 2256 of this title), so long as the Government makes
the property or material reasonably available to the defendant.
18 U.S.C. § 3509. Section 2256 defines “child pornography” as any visual depiction which
involves the us of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct or a visual depiction that is
indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8).
Case 1:24-cr-20523-BB Document 204 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2026 Page 3 of 5

Case No. 24-cr-20523-BLOOM/Elfenbein
4
The Government contends only 11 of the images it seeks to introduce at trial fall within §
2256’s definition of ‘child pornography” and therefore, are proper to withhold under § 3509(m).
The Government posits that it should not have to provide images which fall outside of § 3509(m)
because that would require it to generate additional reports and an additional set of discovery. The
Court is not persuaded. The Government fails to cite case law or statutory authority suggesting
that discovery to which Defendant is entitled to have under Rule 16(a)(1)(E), should not be
produced merely because it would be burdensome. The Court agrees with Defendant that the
Government must produce copies of all images that are not “child pornography” , subject to the
Parties’ proposed protective order.
Regarding the 11 images that fall within the definition of § 2256(8), the Government shall
identify each of those files by name and hash value and provide that information to Defendant.
Although the Government indicates that it emailed redacted copies of the extraction reports
relating to the images the Government intends to use at trial, that does not satisfy Defendant’s
request that he be provided with images identified by file name and hash value. Given the nature
of the Second Superseding Indictment that Defendant “did knowingly possess one visual
depiction”, the Government must identify which image forms the basis of each charge.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	Defendant’s Motion, ECF No. [192], is GRANTED.
2. 	The Government shall produce copies of all depictions the Government does not
contend are “child pornography” under 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)—including the “dozens of
cartoons or other drawings” it has identified for use at trial—subject to the Parties’
protective order by September 18, 2026.
3. 	The Government shall identify, by file name and hash value, the 11 images it contends
Case 1:24-cr-20523-BB Document 204 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2026 Page 4 of 5

Case No. 24-cr-20523-BLOOM/Elfenbein
5
are “indistinguishable” and provide that information to Defendant by September 18,
2026.
4. 	The Government shall identify, by file name and hash value, each image the
Government intends to offer as evidence of the charged offenses in the Second
Superseding Indictment, and each depiction the Government intends to introduce as §
404(b) evidence.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on September 14, 2026.
_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	counsel of record
Case 1:24-cr-20523-BB Document 204 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2026 Page 5 of 5